Republicans win because they’ve rigged the system. It’s been pointed out to you several times that Democratic candidates for the House got more votes in aggregate than Republicans but due to gerrymandering the Republicans won more seats. That’s not what I’d call a mandate. And while Congressional popularity scrapes along the bottom overall, note that the Republicans in Congress are underneath the Democrats.
And America loses when the Republicans in Congress wastes billions on their own petty party agenda (50-ish Obamacase repeals and the various budget stalemates and shutdowns) all the while complaining about the pittance in benefits the poor get and the need to reduce the debt. Hypocrites, all.
And it’s been constantly pointed out to you that geography and race-based gerrymandering give Republicans their House edge. Gerrymandering in 2010 increased that edge, but Republicans would have a natural majority in any case, just as they do in the Senate. I see you also elided over 2010, when Republicans won handily.
Supposedly the public loves it when Democrats legislate, except that four times in a row after giving them that power, the public said, “Um, you can stop now.”
Okay, I can’t even parse this nonsense. Someone explain to me how the Republicans have a “natural majority” in the Senate and how what “the public” want isn’t connected to how the “public” actually voted. Someone who isn’t adaher but speaks blather.
The Senate is easy to explain. Just look at the map. More red states than blue states. Representation isn’t proportional. It’s by districts and states. Democrats have their voters concentrated geographically, whereas Republicans are spread out.
But since you don’t want me explaining it to you, here’s Nate silver:
But minority populations, especially African-Americans, tend to be highly concentrated in certain geographic areas. In the North, this is generally in major cities; in the South, it may be in both urban areas and some agricultural regions (with minority populations generally low in the suburbs). You’d have to go out of your way not to create overwhelmingly minority (and Democratic) districts on the South Side of Chicago, in the Bronx or in parts of Los Angeles or South Texas, violating nonpartisan redistricting principles like compactness and contiguity.
Moreover, especially outside of the South, the white voters in cities with high minority populations tend to be quite liberal, yielding more redundancy for Democrats.
A variety of academic analyses of redistricting have found that this geographic self-sorting accounts for much — probably most — of the “skew” of Congressional districts against Democrats. Gerrymandering and other partisan efforts at redistricting do play a role, but it is mostly around the margin. A study by John Sides and Eric McGhee found that redistricting after the 2010 Census, which was controlled by Republicans in many key states, produced a net swing of only about seven House seats toward Republicans.
None of which refutes my point, which is that more people in aggregate voted Democratic. So if your argument is what “the public” wants, well…a majority of the public want the Democrats. You can’t count Congressional seats and claim it maps across to popular desire; in fact, Nate Silver’s analysis clearly supports my view, not yours.
Again you demonstrate your complete lack of ability to imagine what real world liberals actually want to accomplish.
Halperinesque Fox News nonsense.
No one could govern with this Congress, and any governing done with this Congress would inevitably be terrible for America. The nuts are in charge of Congress, and thankfully the Senate and the WH are in the hands of sane, though certainly flawed, actors.
Maybe. But note that Obama’s likeability rating is still way higher. GWB won two terms on being a guy people wanted to have a beer with and little else. Maybe perceived leadership isn’t much of a factor.
And an electorate in Florida in 2000 that was baffled by a ballot design, the timidity of Al Gore in giving up too soon, a 2004 anti gay ballot item in Ohio, disparity in voting machine allocations in 2004 in Ohio, and an Ohio Secretary of State that threw out voter registrations for being completed on the wrong weight of paper.
Definitely. He’s always had that going for him. And that’s always been Clinton’s weakness.
But I think the reason Obama beat Clinton was also simply that his campaign was bolder. She was running her campaign totally by the book. It had no heart and soul. That’s going to be the only way to beat her, either in the primary or the general. A candidate has to beat her soundly in likeability and not play it safe in the campaign.
I’m going to be up-front: at this point in time I couldn’t care less if the Republican Party EVER has anybody in the White House again, but I can’t say I’m all that big a fan of Hillary Clinton’s, either. Besides - I thought progressives in this country were supposed to give some thought to presidential elections - not just throw a name out 2 (or more) years in advance and hope it sticks (as Republicans so often seem to do). I don’t know if Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016 but with the train wreck that is the Republican Party right now it might not matter as far as whether or not the Democrats extend their presidential election “winning streak” to three.
She has more charisma than any of the donkeys to GOP has to field, and besides, she knows the name of at least one national publication. Clinton is far more agreeable than a Ryan, or a Paul, Santorum, Christy, the list goes on. The 1% have enough bought and paid for representatives in Congress, let’s keep their paid goffers out of the people’s house.
I really hope the Dems can come up with someone different. I mean, I’ll vote for Clinton in a general against any conceivable Republican nominee, and I think she is eminently qualified, but I have two gut-level objections to her:
her age
her name
I think she’s too old to be up to the rigors of eight years of the presidency She’d be what, 76 at the end of her second term? Her health seems okay now (not withstanding the blow to the head she took in a fall at the end of 2012) but actuarily speaking there’s some health risk there.
Secondly - I’m not a big fan of presidential dynasties. The first Clinton administration was great, but having the same family in the Whitehouse for a total of 16 years is too long. I didn’t like seeing the Bushes repeat either for the same reason. If Clinton were elected a roster of U.S. Presidents since 1988 would read "Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Obama-Obama-Clinton-[Clinton]. That’s up to 36 years with only three families in the White House. Let’s embrace some diversity.
If Hillary Clinton becomes President, the first thing the GOP House will do is open up impeachment hearings. Their articles of impeachment will focus on Benghazi, Vince Foster, and aiding and abetting that impeached-perjurer, Bill Clinton. When it’s pointed out that you can’t impeach a President for offenses committed before they were elected, they’ll just blame the MSM, and impeach her anyway.
And if the GOP controls both Chambers of Congress, they’ll pass a bill repealing Obama-care and then scream holy hell when Pres. H Clinton uses her veto. And they’ll continue to pass a new bill for repeal to President Clinton and sh t themselves after every veto.
No, they won’t impeach Clinton. Republicans learn from only one thing, and that’s losing. They lost last time they impeached Clinton.
As for ACA, it all depends on what kinds of things Clinton has to say about ACA to win the election. If she insinuates in any way that she’d consider delaying the individual mandate or letting people keep their insurance forever, or easing some of the requirements that are pushing prices so high, then she can expect a bill on her desk on her first day making those changes.
Republicans of this era don’t learn a goddamn thing. When they lose they just blame it on the “Mainstream Media.” That foolishness remains the Democrats’ best hope. When last fall’s pols showed them behind, they blamed it on “skewed polling,” and they actually believed their own nonsense! When the election results and exit polling showed them getting trounced amongst ethnic minorities and single-women, instead of dealing with the fact that their positions on issues were the reason, they blamed it on perception, and said they had to send a clearer message. The GOP is like a kid blaming his “F” on an unfair teacher, or an alcoholic blaming his wife/boss/kids for his drinking. The GOP preaches that the poor should take greater “responsibility” for their lives, while they don’t take any responsibility for their losses and blame everyone else for their failures. They condemn the intrusion of big government but are obsessed with what’s going on inside every uterus, and want same-sex couples to keep their sex-lives confined to the backrooms of bath houses and highway rest stops.
The Democratic Party is fair game for criticism, but don’t try and tell me that the Republican party learns from their mistakes.